You are here

Coundon Manor Care Home Good

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 9 September 2014
Date of Publication: 25 October 2014
Inspection Report published 25 October 2014 PDF

People should get safe and appropriate care that meets their needs and supports their rights (outcome 4)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Experience effective, safe and appropriate care, treatment and support that meets their needs and protects their rights.

How this check was done

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 9 September 2014, observed how people were being cared for and talked with people who use the service. We talked with carers and / or family members, talked with staff, were accompanied by a pharmacist and talked with commissioners of services.

We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

Our judgement

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.

Reasons for our judgement

At our last visit we were concerned that care plans did not provide accurate and up to date information about people’s health and social care needs. We were also concerned that people were not involved in care reviews or care planning.

During this visit we looked at four care records. Records provided detailed information about people’s health and social care needs and any risks staff needed to be aware of when delivering care. For example, we saw where people required support to move, there were clear risk assessments and care plans with instructions for staff about the equipment needed and how many staff were required to ensure people were safe when they were moved.

We saw information had been sought from the person or their relative about the person’s past history and any hobbies or interests they had. This supported staff in their communication with people and in arranging possible hobbies and interests for people within the home.

We saw one care record documenting a person’s behaviour. This did not accurately reflect our observation of the person, or the information we received from the manager about the person. We showed this to the deputy manager who agreed the record was misleading and told us they would change it.

At our last visit we had concerns about skin care. We saw a number of people had pressure sores as a consequence of a lack of understanding and knowledge from staff about supporting people whose skin was breaking down. We found that all of the concerns we highlighted had been addressed by the provider and staff had received training to support them in providing effective skin care to people. We looked at one care record which had detailed recording of the skin breakdown of the person, the involvement of district and tissue viability nurses, and the plans to improve the integrity of the skin. This meant staff were closely monitoring the person's skin and working effectively with health care professionals.

At our last visit the manager told us they needed to do further work to check whether applications had to be made to the Local Authority because people’s liberty was being deprived under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). At this visit they told us they had sent three applications in to the Local Authority in August and three in September 2014 but they had not yet found out whether the applications had been approved. This meant the provider was working within the legal framework of the Mental Capacity Act and DoLS.

We observed staff support people throughout the day. We found staff on the whole, were caring and kind to people. We asked people who lived at Coundon Manor what they thought of the care they received. One person told us, “I’ve always liked it here, I’ve been here for years.” Another said, “It’s wonderful.” A third person told us, “It’s very clean, the people are very kind.”

We spoke with relatives about the care provided to their loved-ones. On the whole relatives were positive about staff support. One relative told us the care was, “Very good.” Another said, “I visit most days, from what I notice the care staff are very good.” “I’m very pleased with it, no matter what we asked for, it’s been done, they seem to be very caring.” “I come and help my wife every day. The staff are good, I can’t complain.”

Whilst the majority of comments from people and their relatives were positive about the care provided, a relative told us their loved one had commented to them that a member of staff had told them to ‘just do it’ (in their pad) instead of going to the toilet. We informed the manager of this who told us this was unacceptable and would investigate.

We saw people being provided with their breakfast and with their lunch. During both times, people were offered choice and staff were attentive in making sure people got what they wanted. For example we saw one person being asked if they wanted a cooked breakfast and staff checked how many slices of toast they wanted with it.